Straight Pill

[evolvedForm]

My friend asked me this hypothetical today, and I think it would make for some good debate on here. I'm refining it for this forum.

Suppose scientists develop a pill that would eliminate homosexuality all together. But, the pill only eliminates the genetic tendency towards homosexuality (supposing there definitely is one) in babies. Homosexuality would probably still exist but in a much more narrow form, given that the genetic aspect is erased. And note that it would not "cure" adult gay people, as if it were sent from heaven in response to one of Jerry Falwell's prayers.

Jokes aside, assume for this question that homosexuality will only be 0.5% of the population after the pill comes out.

Should gay people approve or reject it? Do you think gays would want to rid the world of people who share the same highly problematic* sexual orientation? Would they want to spare future generations of gays the same hardships they themselves had to go through? If they accept this option, would they be selling out gay pride?

Or, would they instead defend their lifestyle, holding it up as a model for future generations, remaining true to the "gay pride" mantra? If they choose this option, would they be acting selfishly by promoting heir own freedom at the expense of future generations? Or, would they be justified in affirming homosexuality, even though it is arguably a much more difficult lifestyle?

I don't know how real the possibility of this is, but it seems as though it could feasibly become a reality in the future. As a straight, very libertarian male, I don't think it's an easy ethical decision. I am interested in what gays and nongays think.


I'm not looking for people to comment on whether or not gays are selfish enough to ignore future generations, for that would be missing the point. I want to see what you think is the most ethical decision, first. Then, want to see what you think gays would choose given the situation. I won't listen to obviously anti-gay responses though. There are a couple reasons I'm including the second question, one of which is because i fear there aren't many gays here to speak for themselves. But I don't know that, and that's the other reason.




*I'm assuming in this post that gays in general have harder lives than straight people. I think that's a safe assumption.

[evolvedForm]

I'm calling mispoll on myself. Scratch the second question from the records. Too big of a generalization.

[Phil153]

In my opinion our genetic makeup shouldn't be modified except for serious diseases. For example, a predisposition to depression or addiction shouldn't be tampered with, but schizophrenia should be.

I would class homosexuality as a low level mental illness. Homosexuality doesn't interfere with the ability to have normal lives and normal personalities. So I'm against the idea of a pill.

I think most of these homosexuals would bristle at the idea that their sexual preference is abnormal or undesirable, and would be strongly opposed to a pill to "fix" them. They believe their "diversity" is normal. Most of today's society probably agree with them, due to postmodern propaganda and the homosexual's strong control over Hollywood and the media.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion our genetic makeup shouldn't be modified except for serious diseases. For example, a predisposition to depression or addiction shouldn't be tampered with, but schizophrenia should be.

I would class homosexuality as a low level mental illness. Homosexuality doesn't interfere with the ability to have normal lives and normal personalities. So I'm against the idea of a pill.

I think most of these homosexuals would bristle at the idea that their sexual preference is abnormal or undesirable, and would be strongly opposed to a pill to "fix" them. They believe their "diversity" is normal. Most of today's society probably agree with them, due to postmodern propaganda and the homosexual's strong control over Hollywood and the media.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man you are weird. I was actually interested to see what your response to this question would be, as I honestly don't know how I would feel about this. I think I can say with almost certainty what the "Official Gay Community" would say, and that is that "Homosexuality is not a disease, doesn't need a cure, and you guys can kindly go eff yourselves."

But back to your response, I find it hilarious that you decide to arbitrarily decide that addiction and depression are only "minor" things and should not be treated, whereas "major" illnesses like schizophrenia deserve treatment. Since you seem to have some system (although I can't imagine what it could be, from the example given) to determine which are the really bad conditions and which aren't, please sort the following list into "Treatable by gene modification" and "Not treatable." For the sake of argument, lets just assume all of these are 100% genetically determined and the technology would exist.

Diabetes, CHF, lung cancer, skin cancer, breast cancer, arthritis, hypertension, scoliosis, sickle-cell, male-pattern baldness, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Huntington's, dwarfism, deafness, blindness, and, oh lets say color-blindedness.

You dont have to sort them all, although the more complete your list the more clearly I can get a picture of which things you deem to be 'really bad' afflictions and which ones people ought to be able to suffer through.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]

Man you are weird. I was actually interested to see what your response to this question would be, as I honestly don't know how I would feel about this. I think I can say with almost certainty what the "Official Gay Community" would say, and that is that "Homosexuality is not a disease, doesn't need a cure, and you guys can kindly go eff yourselves."

[/ QUOTE ]
Which is basically what I said.

[ QUOTE ]
But back to your response, I find it hilarious that you decide to arbitrarily decide that addiction and depression are only "minor" things and should not be treated, whereas "major" illnesses like schizophrenia deserve treatment.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe I talked about a predisposition. We should be VERY careful before messing with genes that control our minds. Some of the greatest artists and scientists, and some of most influential leaders, have been "sufferers" of these mental afflictions such as depression, addiction, Asperger's and bipolar. By removing these "undesirable" traits and creating a society full of "happy, normal people" we run the risk of removing a source of human creativity, experience and perspective. That's all I'm saying. We should also be reluctant to mandate that one state of mind is superior to another, except in the case permanent impairment of functioning.

[vhawk01]

Ok, I suppose I agree with you there. We had a case that we discussed in our medical ethics class that dealt with a deaf couple who wanted to have a child. The issue was whether it was ethical or not for them to select for a child who would be deaf. They were deaf, their friends were deaf, and they were part of a 'deaf community.' Since you could make the argument that being deaf, while not the norm, is a state that isn't far removed from simply 'being different' and is not necessarily a handicap (at least many deaf people see it that way) it seems analogous to what you are saying. And I think I agree with you. We should be reluctant to classify one state as necessarily normal or superior to others.

However, I do think that you might be mischaracterizing clinical depression a bit. Clinical depression is every bit as severe and serious a condition as schizophrenia.

[hmkpoker]

I believe there should be another option on your second poll: different gays will voice different opinions.

Tha being said, I believe that the pill should be allowed to exist, and it should be the right of the parent to decide whether or give it to their child (I assume that we're taking is for granted that the pill has no adverse side effects, yes?)

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe there should be another option on your second poll: different gays will voice different opinions.



[/ QUOTE ]

I fixed that in a post immediately, but it got pushed to the bottom just as rapidly.

[ QUOTE ]

Tha being said, I believe that the pill should be allowed to exist, and it should be the right of the parent to decide whether or give it to their child (I assume that we're taking is for granted that the pill has no adverse side effects, yes?)


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, the pill works perfectly.

So you're saying it's ethical for the pill to exist. So would you take the strong stance that it's unethical to withold it (from the market)? Do gays deserve the right to have a say in the matter? I mean, they have a whole culture of their own and they wouldn't want to see it destroyed. In a sense, it's almost like if there were a "white pill" that "cured" blackness. What would you think about that?

[Fast Food Knight]

Not intending to hi-jack, but...

There's a theory I recently heard about that was showcased on 60 Minutes. The idea is that gayness is not genetic, but that it is a result of when a woman carries a boy in her womb that her body has some sort of defense mechanism against the foreign male element. Sounds crazy, but the (rather extensive) studies show that for each older brother a given man has, his chance of being gay goes up by 33%, suggesting that this defense mechanism grows stronger and stronger with each male that she carries.

It is interesting to note that this 33% increase only applies if the younger brother in question is right handed. Didn't really address lesbians.

The full article is
here. <font color="green"> </font>

[Metric]

Interesting question. Two points:

1) I think gay people would indeed be offended/incensed by the pill, and understandably so.

2) Point #1 is virtually irrelevant. The vast majority of children are not born to gays, but to straight couples who would not be incensed by the pill, and would probably view it as a cheap way to ensure their new bundle of joy avoids some unpleasantness associated with being gay down the road, and perhaps to increase the probability of continuing their line/legacy. It would just be thrown in with the rest of immunizations a typical child receives (assuming an idealized pill with no side effects, of course).